My 2 cents... The wiki is definitely one of the most important places to find information in any project. I think it would be a major boost to the freenet project to have a nice functional wiki.
On 10/08/16 08:53, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Ian writes: > >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty >>> decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters >>> that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big >>> (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience). >>> >>> Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of >>> corner cases which don’t work by default. >> >> I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't >> even complete the last wiki migration. Github is easy to use, and its wiki >> syntax is very familiar to people. I think that will be a better place for >> us to be ultimately. I really dislike the idea of us running our own web >> servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall. >> I agree with ian here, github is familiar to everyone at the project and has a fairly easy workflow. I think a project which is occasionally broke should avoid any extra cost eg hosting as much as possible. It should be noted that I do not claim to an expert in any wiki languages so the technical debate is out of my scope. >> If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important >> pages and pay someone to migrate them. People competent in that kind of >> work can be hired quite cheaply. > > If we only needed to port a few "most important pages", transitioning > wouldn’t be an issue. But we have a wiki. That’s not some kind of PR > page but a knowledge base with a lot of information about many different > parts of Freenet. > > Also Mediawiki syntax is just as familiar to people as Markdown — rather > more so. > > I don’t know what is there to acknowledge from my side about not > completing the last transition. I put it up, and it would be strange if > I were to acknowledge my own argument. > > To say more clearly why it’s an argument: It still happens from time to > time that information which was in the old wiki is needed but not > available in the new wiki. Every incomplete transition throws away > information our users and potential developers need. If there’s no one > who pledges to transition the whole wiki — and has a history of > delivering on his or her pledges — then a transition to a new wiki is a > recipe for failure. We’d either lose important information or we’d have > two Wikis to maintain. > > That’s it. I gave my arguments. I won’t argument this further. We’re > moving in circles and different from the website where I said "not now" > and not "we should not", I won’t start seeing a wiki transition as > useful just because arguments are repeated. > > As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and > has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki > is a dumb idea. > Ive wanted to help with the wiki for a while now but hit a technical wall once I started considering it and read the notes that a copy/paste transition was not ideal. I did not understand freenet internals well enough to migrate it properly. I still would like to help but I do not have time for a full transition (I work full time and am at uni part time). I can see Arnes argument that 3 partial transitions obviously makes it harder for anybody to find anything. Maybe we could set up a small team of volunteers to migrate it? Would anyone be keen? I think a copy/paste initial transition would be the only way to get started ie theres just too much info and it appears that only toad actually understands it all Thoughts? Dean (rdrofthestorm on github) _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
